Crazy regs

[fisherman]

This survey is solely because the boat became unregistered and has to register as if it were a new vessel. Once only, but insurance companies insist on any certification being up to scratch so he is loath to alter it afterwards. The bulkhead is not designed to stop free surface effect, that is dealt with much better by getting the water below where there are subdivisions already, it is in case the hull is breached. Clearly such a small, 4.88m boat flooded either side of a midship bulkhead up to 200mm below the gunnel top is going down by whichever end the water is, whereas if the water is below deck and evenly distributed it will settle evenly and there is more chance of pumping out. I showed him some two pot foam today, and suggested he seal the deck except for a central sump end to end, filling the voids with foam. He would have to consult the surveyor, and pay for the privilege, (the initial survey was £650, my last survey was £350 on my 32ft) and there would probably have to be calculations. AND, with underdeck space drastically reduced water would soon overtop the deck and become free surface effect.......I have offered to pen a complaint to a higher authority, but he is scared stiff of upsetting anyone and making things worse. The surveyor is someone who 'used to work as a boatbuilder', I would like to see his quals.
We get the feeling they just want us out of the way.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

It's probably best if he doesn't complain but plays the system instead. The quote from the regs which I posted earlier makes it clear that adding buoyancy is an acceptable alternative. It might be better if he writes, explaining the problem and what he proposes to do instead. Most bureaucrats simply want an easy life and so long as he can tick the appropriate box the surveyor is unlikely to raise any objection.

Bear in mind that the regs also dictate how buoyancy has to be enclosed.....but I'm sure you know that already.

 

[Uricanejack]

How often does the boat have to be surveyed? If a bulkhead were built but it subsequently rotted away how long before it would be discovered and what would be the consequences?

Probably annual inspection. The important point is boat has to be maintained up to survey standard all the time.

 

[Uricanejack]

http://www.seafish.org
http://www.seafish.org/industry-support/marine-survey

Thanks so seafish is the authority.

 

[Uricanejack]

This survey is solely because the boat became unregistered and has to register as if it were a new vessel. Once only, but insurance companies insist on any certification being up to scratch so he is loath to alter it afterwards. The bulkhead is not designed to stop free surface effect, that is dealt with much better by getting the water below where there are subdivisions already, it is in case the hull is breached. Clearly such a small, 4.88m boat flooded either side of a midship bulkhead up to 200mm below the gunnel top is going down by whichever end the water is, whereas if the water is below deck and evenly distributed it will settle evenly and there is more chance of pumping out. I showed him some two pot foam today, and suggested he seal the deck except for a central sump end to end, filling the voids with foam. He would have to consult the surveyor, and pay for the privilege, (the initial survey was £650, my last survey was £350 on my 32ft) and there would probably have to be calculations. AND, with underdeck space drastically reduced water would soon overtop the deck and become free surface effect.......I have offered to pen a complaint to a higher authority, but he is scared stiff of upsetting anyone and making things worse. The surveyor is someone who 'used to work as a boatbuilder', I would like to see his quals.
We get the feeling they just want us out of the way.

You are missing the point.
Any water shipped on deck or bellow deck will have a free surface effect. its not the volume of water which is the problem. Its the area of free water.
By fitting a bulkhead the area is cut in half.
The free water on deck is the biggest hazard.
The boat either requires a means of getting rid of it quickly. or reducing the area.
If the regulations allow the option of increased reserve buoyancy by fitting permanent foam filled tanks. its an option but probably much more expensive than a bulkhead.

Try talking to the surveyor. he will probably be willing to explain it.
He probably does know what he is talking about

 

[cryan]

The problem is that the regs are set for new boats which are usually certified at the design stage by the builders. But if a boats registration is left to lapse for some reason it must be re-certified to current standards which means that you can have wooden traditional boats needing to comply with modern build standards. Big areas are things like gunwale height and bulkheads. Most traditional boats didn't have either. It is also a very expensive process with every agency and department of government demanding their pound of flesh.
A similar hassle is found when re-registering a licenced boat which is why you now see boats in Newlyn with Wick or Lerwick registrations and vice versa when boats are sold between ports it can be too much cost and hassle to re-register where as twenty years ago it was rare to see out of area registrations.
Just another attack designed to destroy the industry.

 

[alahol2]

Probably annual inspection. The important point is boat has to be maintained up to survey standard all the time.

But, presumably, it was up to standard before it had to be surveyed.

 

[prv]

But, presumably, it was up to standard before it had to be surveyed.

It was up to the standard it had to be, but now it's being held to a higher one.

Pete

 

[lw395]

You are missing the point.
Any water shipped on deck or bellow deck will have a free surface effect. its not the volume of water which is the problem. Its the area of free water.
By fitting a bulkhead the area is cut in half.
The free water on deck is the biggest hazard.
The boat either requires a means of getting rid of it quickly. or reducing the area.
If the regulations allow the option of increased reserve buoyancy by fitting permanent foam filled tanks. its an option but probably much more expensive than a bulkhead.

Try talking to the surveyor. he will probably be willing to explain it.
He probably does know what he is talking about

+1.
Fishing in less-than-calm-waters in a small open boat has claimed a few too many lives over the years.

 

[fisherman]

With respect some of you miss the point. Water below deck where there are subdivisions is contained. Talking to the surveyor costs money for each enquiry. Sealing the deck and filling the underdeck with 2 pot foam is not expensive, will probably meet regs, but will be more dangerous as this is the area where water needs to get quickly, where it is contained safely. In the event of flooding the boat would quickly become unstable with fsw in the open above deck area, and the buoyancy low down. It would be cheaper to buy a liferaft, either to preserve him, or to keep the boat afloat as reserve buoyancy.

Manifestly the bulkhead will sink the boat if it is called on to do what is required, ie keep a lot of water in one end of the boat. The surveyor should be insisting on the buoyancy option, if there is no other way round this.

I had one of these boats in 1979, and had 134 stone of mackerel in it, 850 kilos, it was very stable, but had only about a foot of freeboard. These boats are quite traditional design, not over beamy, so tend to remain stable when loaded. A similar load in a bigger wide flat bottomed boat with a higher deck could have shifted and caused trouble.

 

[lw395]

Watertight bulkheads are a well established route to preventing sinking, but you have to divide the hull into sensible sections.
I can see your point that in half amidships is not a sensible division.
Dividing the hull in 3, with the middle section larger might be a better way.
I've capsized a few dinghies with rubbish buoyancy arrangements, I can understand the free water bit!
But i've seen enough racing boats sink to think that some sort of arrangement of buoyancy or bulkheads is worthwhile and probably ought to be compulsory in a work environment.
But it needs to be designed by a bloke who knows what he's doing, not a gov't committee, or a forum.

 

[vyv_cox]

Be very careful with two-pot foam. Although it may be claimed that it is closed-cell, the reality is that it is not 100%. I built a lot of kayaks some years ago and filled bow and stern with two-pot polyurethane foam. Two years later I had to dig it all out, totally waterlogged.

 

[fisherman]

Be very careful with two-pot foam. Although it may be claimed that it is closed-cell, the reality is that it is not 100%. I built a lot of kayaks some years ago and filled bow and stern with two-pot polyurethane foam. Two years later I had to dig it all out, totally waterlogged.

Yes, we would have to find a genuine closed cell foam. Even without foam the space would still be there, but anything to exclude water in the event of hull breach would be preferred. I don't think there have been many instances of holed (GRP) boats at this level. It migh be easy to have two bulkheads, fore and aft as above, to retain stability.
A classic example of FSW, a 35ft FV had been steaming for some time, and, it is thought, the exhaust fitting jubilee clip had failed, the hose dropped off. While in motion the water was trapped in the narrower stern section, on slowing down it rushed forward, the boat quickly capsized, unfortunately while the skipper was in the forepeak getting his lifejacket.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

. It migh be easy to have two bulkheads, fore and aft as above, to retain stability.

Which is what I suggested earlier. I give up.

 

[fisherman]

Which is what I suggested earlier. I give up.

I did say 'as above' in deference to your suggestion. Don't give up on my account!

 

[cryan]

I think I would do it up for the angling market and buy a licenced boat.
As you said, not only will a bulkhead prevent drainage, although a second pump might help, but it starts to impede movement around the boat. What's he planning to work? Creels or nets/lines?

 

[fisherman]

He works a few nets. Of course, when he hauls them into the bin he won't be able to drag the bin aft. Where it would be safer to have the weight.

 

[lenten]

listen to fisherman the voice of practical experience not theory---the bulkhead will make the boat more dangerous and almost impossible to work---look at fishing boats this size they are all designed with as much clear clean working space as possible-----regards lentenrose

 

[Jean]

I'm currently trying to work through the sailing regs, MGN 280, so found this thread interesting. Also surprised to read that there are apparently 24,000 life's lost annually in fishing! What regs are referred to here? The only ones I've found so far for fishing vessels of similar size referred to here are MSN 1813 (F).

 

[fisherman]

there are apparently 24,000 life's lost annually in fishing! What regs are referred to here? QUOTE]

Must be world wide. UK fatalities in 2009, 2010 2011 were 13, 5, 8. Link to the (Seafish) regs further up the thread.